memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek
Inception Shouldn't there be an article that focuses on Star Trek as a whole? For example when people talk about 'Star Trek' they don't just mean the original series, but the original series, the spinoffs and the movies. Rebelstrike2005 11:46, 19 Mar 2005 (EST) : Good idea! That could also be about how Star Trek developed and what ups and downs came across, who was important and what was influenced by Star Trek. Perhaps we could arrange it by timelines, since this topic is very broad. "It's been a long road / Getting from there to here / It's been a long time / But my time is finally near." -- Florian - [[ :Florian K|'' ]] 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) It would not be too difficult would it? Rebelstrike2005 17:25, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) ::I see an article like this being parent to a category also -- the names Star Trek Franchise or Star Trek Production have been used, but i think the concept is "Star Trek as a whole" (from an "our universe," not "their universe" perspective). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:39, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) ::I'm a bit hesitant to suggest it, because it involves a major head article on this site, but the article Star Trek is a redirect to Star Trek: The Original Series... what if the article Star Trek became this new article, with a headline link to TOS? This way the simplest possible article title, Star Trek, would serve to define the franchise as a whole. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:47, 23 Mar 2005 (EST) :::How about Star Trek being a disambugation page, that directs the user to Star Trek: The Original Series and something like "Star Trek (franchise)"? --Defiant | [[User talk:Defiant|''Talk]] 06:48, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) I think using the Star Trek page would be best. - Rebelstrike2005 14:58, 25 Mar 2005 (EST) :::I've reconsidered. I agree, although I think a link to The Original Series should be at the top of the Star Trek page. I'm worried about pages that already link to The Original Series using the Star Trek redirect. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 07:18, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) ::::We already have Timeline of Star Trek production. Perhaps an article entitled "Star Trek production" or "Star Trek (production)" or "Star Trek (franchise)" would be better then having this information on the Star Trek page. Many pages link to Star Trek when referring to TOS. Ottens 07:21, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) ::I've looked at the "what links here" -- seems though a lot of the links the Star Trek are pretty general -- most people already link to TOS if they mean TOS. it would be a small size project to ensure that links to Star Trek are using the general sense of the term, but not impossible. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:42, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) ::I've started the sample article at Star Trek/temp. A couple of you have questioned the article existing at the location Star Trek, but I'd like you to take another look and see if it could work in the format I began. I also see this as being a great place to start a category that we discussed under the name "Meta-Trek," but which I also believe could be very well placed as Category:Star Trek, and linked to this page. ::Otherwise, we can move this article to whatever location is decided, but I really think it will pull the structure together to have an article like this, at the name i suggested -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:47, 29 Mar 2005 (EST) This is a great page, exactly what I had in mind --Rebelstrike2005 09:31, 30 Mar 2005 (EST) ::Article has been enabled. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:48, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT) Other topics At a glance, these all look like various phenomena or consistant contributions made to Star Trek by either the writing (47, Redshirts) or production staffs (Okudagram) or as a result of Star Trek s influence on society (Trekkies, Parodies). What if, instead of creating this page, have all of these items linked in a subsection on the Star Trek page (since they all belong to the category anyway)? Either that or rename the article to reflect these observations. --Alan del Beccio 20:37, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I like both of those suggestions, although I think I'd prefer renaming it over merging. It might not be as obvious if placed on the Star Trek article, and I think having some sort of page for these topics on the main page is a good idea as part of our "expanding mandate". However I basically created the page as a catch-all for articles like story arcs, which would otherwise become forgotten once the Ten Forward discussion dies off. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) Star Trek translations needed? required? useful at all? -- Sulfur 13:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :Could be expanded, for German "Raumschiff Enterprise" (Starship Enterprise=TOS) trivia about Bones being named Pille (=Pill), Pavel Chekov being renamed to Pane Chekov could be inserted. Or Japanese Mr. Kento (Sulu) ... -- Kobi 17:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::Or, if we want that trivia, it could be moved to individual articles (TOS for title translations, character articles for naming differences, etc.). -- Cid Highwind 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::: or merge it into Star Trek? --Alan 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ::::I support a merge with Star Trek. I am also wondering which country has Latin as its native language.--31dot 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ::::: I disagree, it merits an article of its own. Come to think of it, we should probably have more (real world) on how Star Trek internationally. --- Jaz 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ::::: One caveat - I don't support simply a list of the words "Star Trek" translated into other languages, but rather a list of the officially licensed titles of Star Trek in other parts of the world. --- Jaz 07:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ::: No matter how much fairy dust and glitter you sprinkle on it, it is still just a list of wayward translations for the 'name' of the Star Trek franchise. --Alan 05:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::Support merge into Star Trek. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :::::To respond to Alan, the reason I think it's more than that is because these names are essentially creative changes. In many cases, Star Trek doesn't translate perfectly, and the words used can really shape the way a show or other creative work is perceived by viewers, readers, et cetera. Since these names reflect actual, lisenced Star Trek products (the product being translated Star Trek) I think they merit recognition on Memory Alpha. I'm not saying its the be-all-and-end-all of Star Trek, but Memory Alpha has never been a place to shy away from minor (yet relevant) details. I think name in translation is a valid lense of analysis and we should keep it as an article in its own right. --- Jaz 06:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::Sure they merit recognition, in the article for the franchise they are names of. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :::::I'll give an example. In Star Trek translated into Hebrew, the name could roughly translate to "Journey through the Stars". Seems on the surface like a generic translations. The catch? There are at least 4 different ways you could translate the noun 'journey' into Hebrew. The word use מסע has specific connotations of learning and adventure, where as the other ones have different connotations. What I'm getting at, is that words matter, and the choice of words is a creative decision on a licensed Star Trek product. Considering a huge portion of Trek audiences only ever see the show in translation, these creative changes have an enormous impact on how Star Trek is perceived in their own countries and communities. I therefor think it merits an article on its own. --- Jaz 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::May be, but as long as the page just states that "XYZ" is used as the Hebrew title, and translated back that means "ABC", all the creativity is completely lost to any reader. And, unless we're going to write long essays about word meaning in Hebrew (which we really don't want to have, here), this not going to change anytime soon. As such, this simple list of translations really should be merged into the main article about the product. -- Cid Highwind 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::: How it already works; anything else proposed here simply borders original research. --Alan 01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Support merge. - 10:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC) What are the things you can't do on Star Trek? Over the last few years, I've read references to a list of things that Rodenberry said could not be done on Star Trek. Despite my repeated attempts to find this list, I've continued to turn up nothing. Can somebody provide me with a URL to this list? : Define "things that could not be done" --Alan 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) :: I believe the person is referring to a list Gene Roddenberry created which outlines certain aspects that could not be performed on a Trek production (probably due to the futuristic utopia style). Although, I have personally never heard of such a list. :S - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) :::I've read rumors of some of the technical side. For example, supposedly Roddenberry forbade making Federation starships with an odd number of warp nacelles, and a few other things like that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) ::::"Roddenberry's Design Rules" can be found . -- Cid Highwind 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) "I believe the person is referring to a list Gene Roddenberry created which outlines certain aspects that could not be performed on a Trek production (probably due to the futuristic utopia style)." This is what I'm talking about. I could swear I've seen a reference to such a list somewhere. But I've never been able to find it. : Which is exactly what Cid listed above. --Alan 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) :::::Story wise, I'm pretty sure you can't have the Enterprise-E travel back in time to December of 1979 and her crew watch Star Trek The Motion Picture opening night. Majorthomme 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC) :::::: He listed technical matters, not plot points. -- , 11 July 2007 (UTC) :::::::I'm almost sure this 'list' is from the Star Trek Writer and Director's Guide, aka the 'TOS Bible'. A few short paragraphs are reprinted in The World of Star Trek. These are presented in a 'FAQ' form, and one of them asks "what Earth looks like in Star Trek s century". The answer is that we don't know, and that Star Trek will not go there, since it presents too many problems. Another one descibes how the people on the Enterprise are not supposed to be truely futuristic (astronaut food, reduced need for sleep, etc.), but are supposed to represent 'contemporary man'. :::::::The 'other' Roddenberry rules are the ones supposedly descibing the number of nacelles and other things a starship can't do. They are the direct result of a falling out between GR and Franz Joseph, and were obviously aimed at discrediting his work. There's no 'in-universe' or even an artistic explanation for it, it was just nasty politics. -- Harry ''talk'' 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I don't know what the entire list was, but I did hear that Roddenburry never wanted pirates to be in star trek. He didn't like the concept of space pirates. --Preator 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Harlan Ellison wanted to feature drug dealing aboard the Enterprise, an idea which was flatly refused. - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 04:02, July 13, 2013 (UTC) Milestone episodes Hello. I just wanted to throw this idea out there: is there/should there be a page/list for Milestone episodes, by which I mean such as the various "100th episodes" of each series ( , and ) and also the n*100th episodes of Star Trek as a whole, including (600th) and (700th). Thoughts? Jayunderscorezero 03:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :No. They were never really mentioned as milestones. So... why should we care? :) -- Sulfur 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :: Well, not to split hairs, but I recall that the original TV promos for DS9 and VOY's 100th episodes were mentioned as such. Still doesn't mean that I think we need to create a special page for them. At the least, we could mention it on that series' page and or as a section on the Star Trek page. --Alan del Beccio 05:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I did think that a separate page might perhaps be going a little far. Still, to what page could/would one add such a list if one were so inclined? Milestone episodes do have their status mentioned in the "Background information" section of their pages. Maybe such points could be extended to include all similar episodes, much like with the bullet points on character pages that note all of the characters who have appeared in multiple shows (e.g. "Along with Evek, Morn and Q, Quark is one of only four characters to appear in all three Star Trek series based in the 24th century: Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager." on the Quark page). --Jayunderscorezero 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Quantification Having an approximate count of types of media is useful, and does not require frequent updating - only every hundred releases per medium, which takes years. STO missions are listed separately from all other games because STO is an MMO, and its missions are considered virtual episodes. - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 02:20, July 13, 2013 (UTC) :It's still one game, just one with a longer lifespan. We aren't the STO wiki and are not here to cover every detail of it. Whether it is made up of "virtual episodes" (a term invented by makers of the game) or not is irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 08:06, July 13, 2013 (UTC) A massively-multiplayer online game is fundamentally different from other games, but this debate is relevant to the question of having an approximate count of novels, episodes, games, and such. The approximate quantifications I listed were removed on the spurious argument that the page would need continual updating, which a) wouldn't be a problem, and b) isn't true, since I rounded to hundreds, and one hundred releases in a given medium takes many years. - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 21:47, July 13, 2013 (UTC) I reverted the revert (which, as explained above, was done according to spurious logic), but removed the specific mention of STO. - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 21:52, July 13, 2013 (UTC) ::The fact that it is an MMO is not relevant to the conversation. It's also not necessary to quantify every single story. I'm not at all convinced that it's even something that we should care about. -- sulfur (talk) 01:10, July 14, 2013 (UTC) I concede the point regarding STO, but see no reason why a simple approximation of the size of the published Star Trek universe should be considered problematic in any way. I've seen many questions in various forums and answer sites regarding the number of Star Trek episodes, novels, and comics. Obviously, some do care. - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 01:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC) :I think "numerous" is more than sufficient for the beginning of this overview article. If people want to count the number of novels or games, they can visit the novels or games pages to get a better idea. 31dot (talk) 11:52, July 14, 2013 (UTC) GoAnimate removed from history I removed the following from the “History” section: Considering that a) this overview is extremely broad, not even naming several of the TV series, and b) GoAnimate doesn’t even exist under that name any more (it is now apparently , and the Wikipedia article says they have retired “non-business” animation themes), I figured this was a much too insignificant detail to mention here. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:04, September 29, 2019 (UTC)